AdNauseam extension blocked

[The Hitchno]

i've read that many companies, even smaller ones, are being issued refunds from google because of fake traffic, presumably generated by this addon. so if anyone is being hurt financially it seems to be google and not website owners.

while i personally don't use the addon (happy with ublock origin), i must implore you to reevaluate your stance on this matter

Hell if I can find my old login, so I'll just make a new one.

You've read incorrectly. They're not being issued refunds because of this addon, they're being issued refunds because google is being it's shit self, and sold ad lines to circular webfarms. Short summary of that: A site that publishes something, then it gets sold to site B and x-linked to a dozen other sites. Site A then use the "referer" as the site count and say "look at all this traffic!" Which means they're paying more for ads. Advertisers themselves are pissed off at google because, google despite having been caught letting this happen advertisers is only refunding 3-9% of the false click-through rate. The absolute worst that this addon does is poison the clickthrough rate, which the developer gives an A-OKAY if it's something that they support. Like tracker poisoning. The real problem with advertising is click-through-farms.

But you're right, this doesn't hurt advertisers. This doesn't hurt small websites either. It hurts the ad-networks, and the biggest ad-network around right now is adsense & affiliates(google) with 70-80% of the total marketshare. The reason this is all becoming a thing is because of what google has been pulling the last 5 months or so on youtube. That being outright blocking of well...anything, and cutting off revenue streams to well pretty much anyone. Youtube sayz: Win9x apps are inappropriate, no monies for you. https://twitter.com/lazygamereviews/sta ... 3214863360 Youtube sayz: https://twitter.com/GeekVariety/status/ ... 5743014912 non-political talk with industry people? No monies for you. This mainly started with the absolute bullshit from the WSJ lying through their face and pewdiepie.

This is a new phase of a consumer and creator revolt against google and youtube, to cut off their funding for being absolute shit stains. The situation is far more complex then moonchild understands, but if you spend time in non-tech circles there's a lot of angry people at google for hurting content creators.

[Sajadi]

It is like that.. even if you do not like the opinion of others, you have at least to tolerate it.

There is already too much wrong stuff going on... Conservative pages get banned from Paypal, left wingers deny that right wingers are allowed to use their right of free speech (even if it is not racist or fascist stuff)....

I know that this decision here can't be compared to the evil of the examples above, but what i mean is in times where free speech and rights of certain groups are reduced, even more actions similar like that should not going to happen.

Would be nice to see that decision reverted. Moonchild, maybe you do dislike or not agree with that extension developer, but they too have the right of their own kind of free speech!

Also, adblockers are if you look at their basic concept doing some kind of damage. And based on that decision above you theoretically would have also to add each and every adblocker to the blocklist. Just saying.

Blocking Malware, Botnets or what could damage the browser is the right thing. Everything else is for sure not

[nado_]

If you want a browser configurable, "your browser, your way", i think it is highly ironic that people hate having to take an action in the *config*.

[Latitude]

A simple hack on about:config could solve this problem. Geez to you all who complain.

It reminds me about the old cases of "controversial" change to Pale Moon start page and the change of default search engine from Google to DDG.

[Moonchild]

I have no beef with the extension developer. As said in my previous post I'm open to any discussion with them to solve this issue.
Sajadi: It has nothing to do with free speech either.

This may be FOSS, but FOSS does not mean you have the "freedom to use the software in damaging ways with the developer's blessing". It means you have the freedom to, if you don't like it, change it to something you do like, yourself. This block is the clear warning that you're doing something directly hurting others. You can override it if you insist, and keep using the browser as a clickbot (that broadcasts your presence and specific site visit not only to the ad network placing the ad, but also to advertisers the ads link to -- so much for combating "ad surveillance"?) if you insist. You have that freedom.

But you're right, this doesn't hurt advertisers. This doesn't hurt small websites either. It hurts the ad-networks, and the biggest ad-network around right now is adsense & affiliates(google) with 70-80% of the total marketshare.

You're incorrect. Being flagged with invalid traffic does hurt web publishers, make no mistake. It doesn't hurt advertisers, and it only barely affects the ad networks like Google and affiliates (because losses from advertiser payments are punched down the line to the publishers). I have first-hand experience with that, being a small website owner, and that wasn't even because of generated bot-clicks (which are punished severely). I'm talking about seeing your income retroactively culled by over 90%^[1].

If you're still upset about this, please go back in this thread and thoroughly read my posts above. Have some chamomile tea, too.

Also, no, I will not respond to PMs or e-mails that have no other purpose than cussing at me personally or trying to pressure me into revising this decision which has been a while in the making.

[1] Real-life snapshot of AdSense's reporting interface showing the result of having an account flagged with invalid traffic.

[The Hitchno]

You're incorrect. Being flagged with invalid traffic does hurt web publishers, make no mistake. It doesn't hurt advertisers, and it only barely affects the ad networks like Google and affiliates (because losses from advertiser payments are punched down the line to the publishers). I have first-hand experience with that, being a small website owner, and that wasn't even because of generated bot-clicks (which are punished severely). I'm talking about seeing your income retroactively culled by over 90%^[1].

...

You're gonna have to give something else besides a snapshot of you saying "I said so" for it to actually mean something. Email from google/adsense stating that this is the actual case would be enough, this is contrary to other things that were happening at the same time.

Remember what happened in mid-2016? It was the start of the collapse of the weakest ad-farms, those are the problem. It was also the time when ad-referer networks started collapsing, lot of talk that this was the start of dotcom 2.0 remember? Every site started seeing this, vox, gawker sites, blog farm sites, and so on. I believe it was vox and mic which saw 80% losses in roughly the same time period posted, this is far beyond the reach of this addon unless you're saying that 70% of the internet is using it. "Internet advertising" itself has so many problems that are self created that this is an inevitable outcome, it's only going to get worse when a single company holds a monopolistic share of the market and people get more angry.

[Moonchild]

You can believe me or not believe me. That's up to you.
Let's just say I don't understand why you even doubt the validity of this; what reason would I have to "make this up"? If your answer is "to win the argument" then I ask that you not think me so petty as to do something like that.

People who have been on this forum longer will probably recall why Google took action against us (trying to enforce censorship -- it's all in the open on this very forum, do a search). We've also never used "ad-farms" and only used Google directly. After the account was flagged, all websites under that account saw a sharp decline in revenue paid, with large percentages attributed to "invalid traffic", even on sites that did not have "offensive" content; only because they were operated under the same account.
After that, it even branched out to start.me, saying we couldn't have a Google search box there, clearly finding any and all excuse to further reduce revenue.

Communication from Google has been minimal because they clearly didn't want to give me anything to work with to escalate/combat the issue, and anything, and I quote, that "artificially inflates ad performance or harms advertiser conversions" is in violation of their policies and will result in flagging of your account. This extension does both: it inflates ad performance (artificial clicks) AND harms conversions (the result is not displayed to the user but discarded, so conversion will be 0% for any "click"). It doesn't take a large percentage of visitors with AdNauseum to raise a flag in their algorithms, especially considering most people visiting websites with ads don't click on them religiously.

[ron_1]

I think everyone whining should go make their own browser.

What's so hard about making a little about.config change if you want to continue being a botnet?

[Joskapista]

Someone please enlighten me: how does an advertiser or ad-network know if a click was legitimate or from a bot?

[Gandalfdjh]

Simply amazing.

Would be nice if people understood a few facts:

Browser - it is software, you choose which one to use based upon what the browser developer has coded into the software. You choose to accept what he/she has done and is offering to you for use. They make the decision.

You do have an option to change that software with extensions, add-ons, forks or hacks. This is your choice and you assume the risks.

Pale Moon is available for free. You have options to change it or not.

Pale Moon as a project has already been compromised by Google in regards to ad revenue, etc. Pale Moon took a stand against them trying to control user content on the forums. You can search about that here on the forum.

You have the freedom.

Hope you decide to use it wisely!

[Grainfrog]

I'm new here, so forgive me if I am misunderstanding something here, but it seems to me that a big part of the confusion regarding this issue is caused by misunderstanding the way the announcement was worded.
When the topic reads "AdNauseum extension blocked", people understandably read that and assume that they can no longer use it.
But in reading the post by MoonChild it seems clear that what is meant by "blocked" in this case is merely that the extension has been placed on the "blocked add-ons list", which itself can either be used or not used according to the wishes of the user.
So in reality the extension is not actually blocked in the traditional/literal sense of the word, but rather it is merely re-categorized as malware on an optional list without actually affecting its functionality for those who still want to use it.
If that is an accurate assessment, then accusations of "forced ideology" and the like against MoonChild and/or PaleMoon are without merit.

[gracious1]

But in reading the post by MoonChild it seems clear that what is meant by "blocked" in this case is merely that the extension has been placed on the "blocked add-ons list", which itself can either be used or not used according to the wishes of the user. [emphasis added]
So in reality the extension is not actually blocked in the traditional/literal sense of the word, but rather it is merely re-categorized as malware on an optional list without actually affecting its functionality for those who still want to use it.
If that is an accurate assessment, then accusations of "forced ideology" and the like against MoonChild and/or PaleMoon are without merit.

It reminds me about the old cases of "controversial" change to Pale Moon start page and the change of default search engine from Google to DDG.

Great points. I concur that this is really rather like MoonChild's decision to exclude the Google search engine from being installed by default. Okay, so you have work a tiny bit to get Google as a choice in the drop-down list in your search bar, or you can just leave it out. Likewise, you can tweak the configuration if you want to install AdNauseam, or some other disesteemed software — or you can let it be. Was he censoring Google? No, he was just not going to serve Google search engine to users on a plate; they have to go and serve themselves.

Probably the biggest issue is (as Grainfrog said) one of word choice, that using the word "blocked" in the title was less constructive than, say, announcing "AdNauseam moved to malware list", and then explaining what this feature is (before now I was not entirely aware of it, personally) and that users may choose to opt out of this feature if they wish to install any of the items listed therein.

Peace out.

[satrow]

Someone please enlighten me: how does an advertiser or ad-network know if a click was legitimate or from a bot?

Maybe by cursor movement detection as used by some exploit packs: no cursor movement, no delivery; Honeypot detection avoidance.

[BaconCatBug]

As someone who has been looking for an alternative to Chrome, this is disappointing. The extension is not malware, and you've basically taken an ideological position and told your customers if they want to run an extension that is not malware, they need to make themselves vulnerable to malware.

This is disappointing on so many levels.

[back2themoon]

Omg the drama... only thing that emerges here is the interesting urge to put Pale Moon on a par with Mozilla, Google (!) etc. as if Pale Moon suddenly started collecting your data or something. I won't be surprised if similar nonsense appears outside of these forums.

To those complaining... change the bloody about:config setting already and choose your battles a bit more wisely.

The day you decide what I get to do with my computer is the day I stop using your browser.

This is beyond hilarious.

[FreeAdnauseam1984]

The users should decide for themselves if they want to install whatever extensions they want on their browser
AdNauseam is not misleading anyone, they say exactly what they are doing, people use it knowing what it does, it is not malware.
The pop-up asking to disable the addon, however, cites stability or security issues, the post says it is malware, when people are found lying, they lose trust.
to people saying "just tweak x in about:config", just because there is a workaround, doesn't mean there is not a block. this extension should be able to enter through the front door instead of breaking the wall to get in.

[adisib]

AdNauseam is not misleading anyone, they say exactly what they are doing, people use it knowing what it does, it is not malware.

I don't remember anyone claiming it is misleading. Sure they say what they are doing, but what they are doing is malicious. Malware is malicious software, nothing more. It may not be malicious directly towards its users, but it is still malicious to others and so is malware. Defending an addon that people shouldn't use doesn't help your case of saying people should be allowed to install any compatible addon.

[Defiant]

I think everyone whining should go make their own browser.

What's so hard about making a little about.config change if you want to continue being a botnet?

Part of the problem is comments such as yours here.

What's so hard about a little about.config change? It makes our browser less secure.

Continue being a botnet? We're not, and now thanks to Moon there are people regurgitating the lie.

Misinformation is so common place right now, people are sick of it. The only reason this product, Palemoon, has any success whatsoever is because of other companies making decisions like Moon just made here. He's damaging his product over personal beliefs and people are going to leave in droves.

And yes, I'm sure someone out there will make their own browser free of political bias and individuals beliefs. I actually thought that was Palemoon, oh well, won't take long to find a replacement.

Thanks for the waste of time though?

[Defiant]

Defending an addon that people shouldn't use doesn't help your case of saying people should be allowed to install any compatible addon.

The only people telling us we shouldn't use it are engaged in wide spread psychological influence. They're making money by screwing with our heads day in and day out. They effect our lives in ways most of us do not recognize. The Internet is not an advertisement. There's nothing built in, no law, that forces us to tolerate this massive invasion of privacy. People such as yourself, who welcome that with open arms, you are most certainly part of the problem.

People who use Palemoon are looking for solutions or they would just be using Firefox. Now that Palemoon has shown itself to be part of the problem... I don't think I need to say more.

[redblade7]

Great.

At this point I'd be willing to pay a few hundred dollars for an ethical shared-source Web browser.